STREET GANGS USED TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER

In a highly controversial action being closely
observed by other large municipalities, the City of Angels has
instituted a "pseudo" law aimed at the control of the most notorious
and deadly of its many gangs. Known simply as the "18th Street Gang",
they are one of the nation's fastest growing with an estimated 15,000
to 20,000 members throughout East Los Angeles. Following the lead of
other California cities like San Jose, Los Angeles intends to use
codes called civil injunctions to not only limit their activities,
but possibly eliminate the 18th Street Gang altogether.

Civil injunctions are instruments similar to
restraining orders such as might be used against labor unions
engaging in illegal strike activity or in restraint of a potential,
but not convicted, suspect in a domestic violence dispute. They are,
briefly stated, attempts to make the court system an arm of the
police in law enforcement rather than remaining within their
traditional, and constitutional, role of adjudication. In the case of
Los Angeles' 18th Street Gang, the "people subject to the injunction
[those individuals identified as members] may not congregate in
groups of two or more with other known members of 18thStreet in a specified target area." They are enjoined against
associating together in public or, as ABC television reported, to
even "stand together in their own front yards".

As clearly as the city's actions appear to
violate the clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment that says,
"No person shall be...deprived of...liberty...without due process of
law..." the sheer violence and barbarism exemplified by Los Angeles
street gangs, appears, on the surface, as just cause for depriving
those individuals of their constitutional "right...to peaceably
assemble" as per the First Amendment.

ONLY PARTIAL MARTIAL LAW

The head of the Los Angeles City Attorney's
Gang Unit, Marty Vranicar, informed The WINDS that, in his attempt to
curb the power of the 18th Street Gang, he was targeting only
specific neighborhoods, not the entire gang turf of East Los Angeles.
He could not do that, he said, because it would be like "declaring
martial law throughout the city," leaving the implication that he is
declaring martial law in some, but not all, areas--over some, but not
all, individuals-- suspending the rights of some, but not all,
uncharged, unconvicted persons. Mr. Vranicar told this reporter that
the residence of those neighborhoods are telling him that it
works--but, in his own words, "at what price?"

In a letter to the Los Angeles Daily
News, Superior Court Commissioner, Jack Gold, referring to L.A.
street gangs commented that "the constitutional arguments [do not]
fly, because the Constitution was written
when there were no gangs...."

The California Supreme Court, in a recent
decision involving the City of San Jose (People v. Acuna), decided
that the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the city's gang members
were secondary to the rights of neighborhood residents against
intimidation by their presence. The majority opinion written by
Justice Janice Rogers Brown stated, "Liberty unrestrained is an
invitation to anarchy....The freedom to leave one's house and move
about at will and to have a measure of personal security is implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty." The dissenting opinion claimed
that the rights of the gang members to gather and freely associate
were violated and that the terms of the injunctions against
"confronting," "annoying," "challenging" and "provoking," were terms
too vaguely defined. In June the United States Supreme Court refused
to hear an appeal by plaintiffs against such use of injunctions thus
allowing the California court ruling to stand.

The San Francisco Chronicle, in a
January,'97 article, quoted San Jose Mayor, Susan Hammer as calling
the state court decision a " 'tremendous victory in the fight against
gangs' and said it reinforces her long time position that gang
members 'are not welcome in San Jose.' " Note that Mayor Hammer says
that it is the gang "members" not the gangs themselves that are
unwelcome. This raises the question as to whether the mayor views the
gang members as merely parts to a whole rather than individual
persons with constitutional rights. It could be asked if it should
not be the "members" that are welcome and their organizational
activities be disavowed?

The Chronicle goes on to state that San
Jose "Police Chief Louis Cobarruviaz hailed the success of the
method, which he said decreased crime in the neighborhood by 54
percent."

SERIOUS ISSUES ARISE

This approach to law enforcement presents a
serious question as to the possibility for the intentional
misdirection of society's attention from the central issue of
liberty. If reduction in crime alone, apart from any higher
consideration, is the goal of this civilization (and it seems that is
rapidly becoming the case), then the methods the Italian dictator
Benito Mussolini exercised during World War II are to be most highly
esteemed. Under his reign there was virtually no street crime,
organized or otherwise, because Mussolini's regime was constrained by
no constitutional rule of law but his own. If one were suspected of
criminal activities, no due process was required to suspend their
liberties.

Amitai Schwartz, primary attorney representing
the youths in the case against San Jose, is quoted in the
Chronicle article as decrying "the loss of personal
liberties." "What we'll probably see more of, sprouting like
wildflowers," Schwartz warned, "are more of these injunctions where
law enforcement is shortcut and the courts will be asked to become
an arm of the police department."

Because an estimated thirty to fifty per cent
of these gangs are illegal aliens, the federal government has
deported 3,000 of their most vicious members back to Mexico and El
Salvador where they are actively recruiting children as young as nine
years of age. This has proven very effectual in transplanting and
proliferating the violent subculture spawned in East Los Angeles
into, especially, the slums of San Salvador where police have neither
the training nor the manpower to combat the influence.

The constitutional dilemma created by the
vicious and predatory nature of urban street gangs, in conflict with
any attempt to protect the rights of their individual members, poses
a formidable national conundrum. This, in concert with the
"hyperfocus" placed upon racial diversity and minority rights, has
given rise to social conflicts among the various factions which seem
to make viable the argument that the constitution cannot address such
aggravated social breakdown and, of necessity, must be weakened for
the very sake of preserving society. What those making this argument
fail to comprehend, or admit, is that it is precisely that goal for
which the conditions that breed such phenomena were created. And it
is also the very reason why the system has passed into a terminal
condition and has become irredeemable.

THE CREATION OF A PURPOSE

The New World Government that has been forming
is immaculately successful with its methods of dividing up America
into feudal states of ethnic minorities, using seemingly innocuous
but powerfully effective social tools. In establishing its agenda in
the major cities of the United States it uses proven techniques for
disintegrating societies along ethnic boundaries. The result they are
moving toward in this socio-cultural dissection is most reminiscent
of ancient feudalism. By creating this they maintain the strife and
friction that so effectively furthers their agenda. This has its
roots, largely, in the ingeniously structured welfare system among
whose first priorities was the removal of the father from the family
unit. This makes it necessary for ethnic minorities to seek their
father figures and their manhood in organizations rather than nuclear
or extended families. These synthetic families fill the vacuum of
adolescent need for "belongingness" as well as allegiance and loyalty
to family.

A startling revelation of this method of
fractionating society can be seen in Santa Barbara County when they
selected a textbook for Latin American students that calls for the
"liberation of Aztlan" by Chicanos. Adopted for a high school
curriculum of Chicano Studies for the entire county, the book The
Mexican American Heritage refers to the land of Aztlan which
makes up the five southwest states of Texas, Colorado, New Mexico,
California and Nevada. This territory was paid for and ceded to the
United States from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.

Throughout the textbook are references
consistently referring to the five American states as "Aztlan" and
encouraging eventual annexation to Mexico. On page 107 is the
statement, "Latinos are now realizing that the power to control
Aztlan may once again be in their hands."

If one wanted to destroy the effectiveness of
the single document whose principles stand in the way of a one-world
government, what better way than to create and encourage a situation
so terrible that the citizens of any given community would ignore
those codified principles in order to secure the safety provided by
their violation. In a continual sequence of masterfully orchestrated
checkmates of constitutional liberties, the virtuosos of the New
World Order are creating the effective strangulation of the
Constitution and any other rule of law but their own. In the case of
street gangs, if one is to experience any peace and security within
such urban areas as Los Angeles, it has become a necessity of
survival to severely weaken constitutional restraints leaving men
like City Attorney Vranicar without recourse to other, less odious,
options.

The combat homily of "divide and conquer" is
probably among the oldest and certainly most effectively used by the
New World Order.

"Every kingdom
divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or
house divided against itself shall not stand." Jesus of Nazareth,
Matthew 12:25.

We are now witnessing a most terrible
fulfillment of that proverb.

Written 7/23/97

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.